Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Looks like one in the eye for the right-wingers who thought a WMD was a bottle of chemicals buried in the desert. This leading expert would even struggle to consider a chemical warhead attached to a missile a WMD.

Just when the Government was thinking the Hutton inquiry might have a quiet day, more witnesses, e-mails and memos materialised to grab the headlines and continue Tony Blair's misery.

Downing Street had been hoping that while the inquiry may be critical about the treatment and naming of Dr David Kelly, on balance it would escape unscathed on the issue of the September Iraq dossier.

But yesterday two witnesses from the Defence Intelligence Staff, one of whom took the unusual step of going public, ensured that the dossier, and Tony Blair's use of it, returned to centre stage. Brian Jones, the MoD's former assistant director, intelligence, with responsibility for nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, gave possibly the most significant evidence to date on the dossier.

The very title of it, Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction, was for the first time called into question. Dr Jones said although the phrase applied to nuclear bombs, many biological and chemical weapons would "struggle to fit in that category". He said many biological weapons were designed to incapacitate rather than kill; they were lethal mainly in enclosed spaces, such as in the nerve gas attack on the Tokyo underground in 1995. Chemical weapons were even more difficult because they would need to be produced in large quantities to have any effect in battle, Dr Jones said.

Given that the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" came fully into the public consciousness last autumn as a result of the dossier, his evidence was startling. Mr Blair, Alastair Campbell and most ministers, frequently used the term, and its WMD initials, as a shorthand for what they saw as an unwieldy "nuclear, chemical and biological weapons". It also conjured up the spectre of horrifying attacks launched by Saddam Hussein. Yet here was the Government's most senior official dealing with such issues saying the term was inaccurate. Asked whether he felt there was a difference between missiles and artillery shells with chemical warheads, Dr Jones replied: "I think I would struggle to describe either as a true weapon of mass destruction."

That spectre of mass destruction was even more frightening when backed by the claim that the weapons could be deployed in 45 minutes. But Dr Jones demolished that, pointing to concerns that it was uncorroborated, second-hand and did not differentiate between chemical or biological weapons. Worse, there was no evidence of production, no recent testing or field trials to back it up.

Just as importantly, he also raised fresh doubts about the dossier's claims on continued production of chemical weapons. The phrase of Dr Jones' own chemical expert within DIS will ensure this element of the document stays in the limelight. The section on chemical weapons was "over-egged", he said. Every doubt that Dr Jones expressed, and those of his staff and Dr Kelly himself, offer much-needed cover for Andrew Gilligan, the BBC journalist who originally reported intelligence experts had worries about the dossier.

Again, in support of Mr Gilligan's claim that No 10 was involved, Dr Jones said "there was an impression that they [Downing Street press office] were involved in some way".

The evidence of "Mr A", a former UN weapons inspector and present member of the Iraq Survey Group, was more damaging here. In saying he and Dr Kelly believed the "merchants of spin" had a greater role than real experts in the dossier's drafting, Mr A gave a huge boost to the Gilligan cause.

Given that Dr Jones was so concerned that his section's concerns were not being taken on board, his evidence raises a further question: why did none of his superiors act on his memo outlining his fears? Tony Cragg, who was deputy chief of defence intelligence, appears not to have raised the issue at the Joint Intelligence Committee, and Dr Jones's boss, the Director Intelligence Science and Technical (DIST), replied saying "thank you" and little else.

It is not clear why Dr Jones was refused access to so-called "further evidence" about production of chemical and biological agents by Iraq. It is certainly odd that his boss at DIST was not allowed access, either.

Perhaps the most devastating charge from Dr Jones came in his suggestion that the JIC had not met to approve the final drafts of the dossier produced on 19, 20 and 24 September. The committee had its last meeting on 18 September, he suggested.

If true, this would be highly damaging for Tony Blair and John Scarlett, the chairman of the JIC, both of whom have claimed the committee "signed off" the document. We know Downing Street made changes after 18 September. If only Mr Scarlett did the signing off, that would represent an abuse of the normal JIC processes whereby every letter of an assessment is cleared by a formal meeting of the body.

So once again the definition you like is the one we're all supposed to use. You're well aware there have been other definitions copied and pasted or linked to.

Ask a dozen experts, you'll wind up with several definition.

So as to this post..... so what?

--------------------You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

I totally agree, its all dependant on ones definition of "mass destruction". And dont get me started on the Hutton inquiry what a waste of time and resources. Our health service is crumbling we have a huge asylum problem and at the moment our main concern is why a MoD employee commited suicide. Even though thier are still many doubts the government has already been cleared of "sexing up" up the dossier by the select committee.

--------------------The punishment which the wise suffer, who refuse to take part in government, is to live under the government of worse men.

Treaties banning the production and stockpiling of other weapons of mass destruction will also be highlighted. Those include the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction (Biological Weapons Convention); and the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction (Chemical Weapons Convention).

There are probably several different definitins out there. Simply because you don't like them makes them no less valid.

I would have thought someone such as yourself, who defines words to suit his point, could appreciate that more than one definition can apply.

--------------------You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Turning to other weapons of mass destruction, he said efforts to rid the world of chemical weapons took a major step forward with the entry into force of the Chemical Weapons Convention and the process towards establishing a verification regime for the Biological Weapons Convention was slowly moving in the right direction. While he understood that verification of that Convention was more difficult than for other traditional weapons of mass destruction, due to the nature of biological weapons, sensible measures to secure compliance and to prevent non-compliance with the Convention could be established with the goodwill and pragmatic approach of all parties.

--------------------You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Quote: And dont get me started on the Hutton inquiry what a waste of time and resources. Our health service is crumbling we have a huge asylum problem and at the moment our main concern is why a MoD employee commited suicide.

Well perhaps the inquiry may make it harder for the UK to get inolved in wars without proper justification in the future. Just think how much money we would have saved that could have been put into the NHS if we hadnt gone to war in Iraq based on bogus information...

Quote: Well perhaps the inquiry may make it harder for the UK to get inolved in wars without proper justification in the future. Just think how much money we would have saved that could have been put into the NHS if we hadnt gone to war in Iraq based on bogus information...

I agree the war on Iraq is a costly affair, the chancellor put aside ?3 billion for it, and other estimates put the total cost at around ?4 billion. However, this will really come down to whether you supported the war on Iraq in the first place, you can't put a price on the freedom of an entire nation. So far the Hutton enquiry hasn't really proven/disproven anything.

Quote:

Did you "sex-up" the Iraq dossier?
Campbell: No
Are you sure?
Campbell: Yes

Did Dr Kelly tell you the Iraq dossier was "sexed-up"?
Gilligan: yes
Do you believe this to be true?
Gilligan: Yes

How informative

--------------------The punishment which the wise suffer, who refuse to take part in government, is to live under the government of worse men.

So 8 lines from the enquiry taken out of any context is enough for you to dismiss the validity of the Hutton enquiry? To be honest im not defending it as I see it as a charade to make us think there actually is accountability in government which there isnt really.

Quote:GazzBut said:So 8 lines from the enquiry taken out of any context is enough for you to dismiss the validity of the Hutton enquiry? To be honest im not defending it as I see it as a charade to make us think there actually is accountability in government which there isnt really.

Doesn't sound as if he's dismissing anything, rather he's keeping an open mind.

Kind of refreshing compared to most who post here from your part of the world.

--------------------You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Quote: And dont get me started on the Hutton inquiry what a waste of time and resources.

Sounds fairly dismissive to me Luvvie duvvie.

No, it sounds like he thinks it was a waste of time and money, ie it doesn't matter in the end..... his "So far the Hutton enquiry hasn't really proven/disproven anything. " indicates he's waiting to see what if anything comes from this, before taking sides.

Which is why I commented on how refreshing it was that he didn't have a pre-concieved notion and how that seems to be rare for people from your part of the world. It's understandable that you didn't get that as it seems to be a concept that doesn't share widespread acceptance over there.

Otay gazzie-wazzie?

--------------------You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Treaties banning the production and stockpiling of other weapons of mass destruction will also be highlighted. Those include the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction (Biological Weapons Convention); and the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction (Chemical Weapons Convention).

As I've pointed out to you before luvvie duvvie, where does this say that a bottle of chemicals buried in the desert is a "weapon of mass destruction"?

I'm no expert mush, I presumed like the rest of us that Bush and Blair were telling the truth and that a barrell of chemicals was a WMD. But the more you read experts on the subject the more you realise that definition was purely for political purposes. This foremost british expert seems to be saying the WMD phrase refers to nuclear weapons.

Well congratulations. You have found two people in the world that agree with you thus far Alex. The commonly accepted definition would include buried drums of chemicals in the desert. He was not allowed to have these, and it was believed he did. Call them chemical weapons if it makes you happy. This semantics argument you continue to put forth doesn't really make any difference to anyone anyway.

The commonly accepted definition would include buried drums of chemicals in the desert

According to who? You and luvvie duvvie? Can you find any expert in the world who agrees with your "commonly accepted" definition? I know that's what George Bush told you but - and this may come as a shock - he might've been lying.

This semantics argument you continue to put forth doesn't really make any difference to anyone anyway

Not me putting it forth shak, it's the foremost expert in Britain putting it forth. That's why it's so compelling.

Those 8 lines were not actually spoken at the Hutton inquiry, it was sarcasm my friend. I was pointing out the fact that nothing has been discovered that wasn't already known. So far the Hutton inquiry has revealed nothing that was not already known.

The justification for going to war was shaky at best

Now do we need a whole inquiry to tell us that. Re-read the 8 lines I "quoted" i'm sure you will see I was merely ridiculing the type of questions being asked and the responses that have been spouted time and time before.I think you simply misunderstood

--------------------The punishment which the wise suffer, who refuse to take part in government, is to live under the government of worse men.

Quote: If I called you a waste of time and dna woulnt it sound like I was dismissing you?

Of course, unless you added the sentence... of course that hasn't been proven yet.

Quote: Why cant you just admit you made a mistake?

Perhaps because I didn't.

Quote: Is your ego really that fragile?

No, I've admitted being incorrect here before. It just that I'm not wrong often enough to suit you. Get over it.

Quote: And as for picking me up on the spelling of Miaow. Just remember whose language it is and you wont make these silly little mistakes in the future!! Meow is the US dumbed down version of the word.

My aren't you a bit touchy today. It was a simple question.

--------------------You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers